The result was Keep Mandsford 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply
All individual pricing game articles were either deleted or merged into this article through AFDs with similar
WP:OR and
WP:N arguments (see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make Your Mark and related AFDs linked there). Sottolacqua (
talk)
15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
Notability is much less of a concern with a split-off list of this kind because it's a subtopic of a notable topic. That's really not a "not inherited" issue where it is indisputably part of a notable topic, and the main article has a section for this very topic, and as the nom notes, there are at least two items on this list that are independently notable. So it's not a matter of notability analysis, but rather a question of what level of detail. For example, if someone were to create Barack Obama presidency on March 25, 2011, it would not be a coherent or useful argument to assert that it did not inherit notability from Barack Obama presidency, but more useful to analyze it as a NOTNEWS or summary style violation.
Sourcing and verifiability are of course important, however, so before we get into a discussion of why or why not this level of detail is appropriate for Wikipedia's coverage of this game show, I'd like to see some discussion of why or why not this is verifiable and to what extent. If the claim is that it's sourceable to the primary source episodes, then I'd like to see an analysis of why or why not that's appropriate. postdlf ( talk) 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Mandsford 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply
All individual pricing game articles were either deleted or merged into this article through AFDs with similar
WP:OR and
WP:N arguments (see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make Your Mark and related AFDs linked there). Sottolacqua (
talk)
15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
Notability is much less of a concern with a split-off list of this kind because it's a subtopic of a notable topic. That's really not a "not inherited" issue where it is indisputably part of a notable topic, and the main article has a section for this very topic, and as the nom notes, there are at least two items on this list that are independently notable. So it's not a matter of notability analysis, but rather a question of what level of detail. For example, if someone were to create Barack Obama presidency on March 25, 2011, it would not be a coherent or useful argument to assert that it did not inherit notability from Barack Obama presidency, but more useful to analyze it as a NOTNEWS or summary style violation.
Sourcing and verifiability are of course important, however, so before we get into a discussion of why or why not this level of detail is appropriate for Wikipedia's coverage of this game show, I'd like to see some discussion of why or why not this is verifiable and to what extent. If the claim is that it's sourceable to the primary source episodes, then I'd like to see an analysis of why or why not that's appropriate. postdlf ( talk) 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply